PROVIDENCE — One bill would affirm a woman’s right to have an abortion without telling her husband.Another would require an ultrasound in which a doctor or technician displays images “that the pregnant...

PROVIDENCE — One bill would affirm a woman’s right to have an abortion without telling her husband.

Another would require an ultrasound in which a doctor or technician displays images “that the pregnant woman may view,” if she wants.

Yet another would allow public dollars to pay for abortions not just in cases where a woman’s life is in danger, but in those that stem simply from a woman’s choice. Yet another would ban abortions in cases where “the decision is based on the sex of the unborn child.”

With state lawmakers introducing their annual collection of bills dealing with abortion, the two sides found no common ground Tuesday through more than 21/2 hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

More than 50 people turned out to testify, with nearly all voicing strong support for some bills and strong opposition to others in the collection of 12 that were before the committee.

Rep. J. Patrick O’Neill, a Pawtucket Democrat who sponsored the bill that lets a woman get an abortion without telling her husband, said the state should not be legislating “how people communicate in their marriages.” But he said the biggest reason to pass his bill is the fact that the existing state law requiring the spousal notification “is in violation of federal law.”

In that case, as in others, the arguments went both ways.

Genevieve Kineke, of the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee, said the bill makes “the husband’s responsibility in the matter inconsequential.”

“Fathers matter, and fatherhood in the home is of great consequence,” she said. She added: “The father is already a father by the existence of a child.”

Rep. Karen MacBeth, a Cumberland Democrat, said the goal of her ultrasound bill is to “provide information” and “make sure that a woman has all the information when making a decision.”

She said the woman can choose not to watch or look at the images, but opponents said the bill would also force the doctor or technician to make a speech the woman would have to hear.

“The real purpose of this law is to shame and embarrass and guilt women out of making a legitimate decision to end their pregnancy,” said Shandi Hanna, of the National Organization for Women.

In all, there were seven bills that had strong support from those describing themselves as “pro-choice” and five that had strong support from those describing themselves as “pro-life.” Some of the bills, such as one that would ban partial-birth abortions, have been introduced year after year, only to be “held for further study” — the status the committee bestowed on all the bills before it Tuesday night.

But that did not diminish the immediacy of the arguments.

Barth Bracy, executive director of the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee, said the bill that would ban abortions based on the sex of the child, sponsored by Rep. Deborah Fellela, D-Johnston, would put a stop to “an appalling form of discrimination” that usually targets girls.

But Suzannah Skolnik-Smith, of the National Organization for Women, urged lawmakers to “consider the true intent of this bill,” saying it “intimidates physicians into not providing abortions that may have nothing to do with sex selection.”

The arguments were also heated on the question of whether public dollars should pay for abortions that do not result from cases of rape or incest or concern about a woman’s health, as well as the issue of when life begins.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras was among those who supported bills that would make abortions more accessible, including one that puts strong language into state law that affirms a woman’s right to have an abortion up until the 24{+t}{+h} week of a pregnancy — the limit under Rhode Island law unless the woman’s life is at risk.

Other speakers such as the Rev. Eugene Dyszlewski, a minister at First Unitarian Church in Providence, opposed a resolution, sponsored by Rep. James McLaughlin, D-Cumberland, that would recognize “the existence of a fetal heartbeat” as “evidence of the existence of human life.”

Dyszlewski was among those who said science, religion and philosophy are not ready to say when life begins, but others disagreed, citing the fetus’ unique DNA and the rapid development of the heart, eyes, backbone, nervous system and other organs.

“I’m just calling it a human being, like it is,” McLaughlin said. “They are human beings … they deserve the respect of being called a human being.”